Intelligent Design vs the Methodological Naturalism standard for science

[shunyadragon]

I only got a minor in Physics, but I am about average for a graduate degree holder in differential equations (my specialty), Hilbert Spaces and differential geometry. I love differential equations and differential geometry.

The reason I think I can skip the hoops is that my working memory IQ is 148 and maybe should be higher. I make a lot of different assumptions in my work. My goal is to get to all the concepts. Yes I know we don't have fluid flow even figured out yet. I claim the same in my work. Yet as I've explained these fluids could be matter as well as thoughts.

You mentioned even finding one answer is not easy. I am barely and I mean barely able to have one explanation that works which doesn't have anything I consider mystical. The fact that it is intuitive however is my merit. I am not allowed to reference where my work can be found.

No one can skip the hoops, if you do your on your own in left field.

 

[robocop (actually)]

We shouldn't see vastly different species giving birth to one another if evolution is true. Are you sure you understand the theory of evolution?

Where are the signs of mutations and not just genetic swapping? They've found a gene for a four-legged being to have two legs, but what is there besides genetic swapping?

How do those versions of Windows fit into a nested hierarchy?

What about emulators?

Why would this cause introns to diverge more quickly than exons?

Why would this produce a nested hierarchy?

Also, the half lives of the isotopes used for radiometric dating are in the hundreds of millions to billions of years. They are more than appropriate for measuring the age of rocks, and hence the fossils associated with those rocks.

Why does commented programming code develop at a different rate than uncommented? Plus I'm agreeing with you about the isotopes.

Then why do we see fossil species with a mixture of dinosaur and bird features?

That would be what I've been talking about with art!

 

[robocop (actually)]

I call BS.

I wasn't lying, but it still doesn't show that consciousness can come from nonconsciousness.

Uh huh. Go try and get your revolutionary ideas published and see what the reviewers say. I'm betting they will snicker a bit before what you wrote hits the round file.

It is published. A man from Los Alamos said, referring to my second book, that my math was correct, my book was very good, "boys like that know what they are talking about," and that usually you have to pay a lot more for a book like [mine].

 

[robocop (actually)]

I heard?!?! not good enough.

Very well if it is not good enough. We still have the question of whether consciousness can come from nonconsciousness.

Not science No evidence for this. You're playing with the Vedic (Hindu) metaphysical belief that our existence is consciousness and does not in reality exist.

It simply is the only explanation I've found that has the merit of being simple and is still possible as far as I know.

 

[robocop (actually)]

OK, but try and distinguish between science, and "I think" philosophy

Very well.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No one can skip the hoops, if you do your on your own in left field.

It's not so much that I skipped hoops but that I found a well-spring about my thought-matter idea that I was able to explore a lot through unknown territory.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Where are the signs of mutations and not just genetic swapping?

The signs of mutations are the differences in divergence between introns and exons, as well as the bias towards transition mutations in comparisons of genomes. The nested hierarchy is yet another piece of evidence that points to common ancestry and evolution.

What about emulators?

How do emulators fit into a nested hierarchy?

Why does commented programming code develop at a different rate than uncommented?

If you are swapping genes from one species to another, why change the introns at all?

That would be what I've been talking about with art!

That makes no sense. Art doesn't fit into a nested hierarchy, either.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Uh huh. Go try and get your revolutionary ideas published and see what the reviewers say. I'm betting they will snicker a bit before what you wrote hits the round file.

There was also an MIT Ph.D in medium physics. He complained that it wasn't testable. I said that's why it was a philosophy but the merits are that to me it's the simplest explanation. He did not say that he had resolved it to be untrue (he said that he had not resolved it to be untrue).

 

[Jose Fly]

Not particularly, but if you have a problem with it feel free.

Well, I did, but since the book has pretty much slipped into obscurity, I haven't thought about it in quite a while.

I know that there are many scientists quoted in Stephen C. Meyer's and Michael Denton's works making ID claims. In Stephen C. Meyer's work he talks about how a judge ruled against ID and goes on to debunk what the judge said. What I'm trying to say is that he has explained his defense to everything thrown at him. In Michael Denton's work he explains that after a 30 years old publication the things he said still hold up very well. Feel free to comment.

I'm sure that's what they believe, but the reality is that neither has had any impact at all on actual science. Of course that's to be expected, since neither one's work were targeted to the scientific community but were instead written to persuade the uninformed public. Such is the nature of creationism.

Good question. I have a lot of copyright information about this (not that it's likely you guys are interested), but have introduced the subject in advertisements. I will share the introduction with you.

Matter and thought go hand in hand like two ends of a magnet. Matter is What it is and Thought is what it Is. Everything is doing something in a system. What it is doing is obtainable from what it is. What it is doing is the thought. What it is is the matter. They are one and the same.

Consciousness is a thought about itself, with the "itself" being removed from thinking about "itself" but not the "thought".

I have developed a lot of science that goes into understanding from shapes how different types of thoughts can exist.

So from that it seems you believe everything has consciousness. Is that correct?

Also, you missed this: Are you more in line with Denton and Behe in how they accept common ancestry of all life on earth, but just believe that a "designer" was involved in the process?

 

[shunyadragon]

Very well if it is not good enough. We still have the question of whether consciousness can come from nonconsciousness.

It simply is the only explanation I've found that has the merit of being simple and is still possible as far as I know.

Actually, the simple explanation is that consciousness is a product of the evolved brain, because of the progressive evolving nature of consciousness in the animal kingdom.

Anything beyond this is shrouded in hypothetical subjective origins and nature of consciousness, and very variable depending on different belief systems.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The signs of mutations are the differences in divergence between introns and exons, as well as the bias towards transition mutations in comparisons of genomes. The nested hierarchy is yet another piece of evidence that points to common ancestry and evolution.

Why would a programmer change commented code at the same speed as uncommented code? Also, you act as if these transitions are spread out every letter at a time. That is not true. The divergences are several letters at a time in the separate types of organisms. While it's true that there are point mutations in cell division, how do you prove that they lead to transitions and it's not ID? A programmer could start out simply and build more complicated organisms later. Emulators relate like this: We can model what we are doing at higher levels once we solidify existence at lower ones.

If you are swapping genes from one species to another, why change the introns at all?

Introns are the "comments" right? When you write new versions of software, the comments can change along with them. I'm sure from time to time you would want to do some cleaning right? Some cleaning and some keeping.

That makes no sense. Art doesn't fit into a nested hierarchy, either.

If ID is right there could still be the nested hierarchy and art. Otherwise there is no art. Up to you.

 

[shunyadragon]

Also, you missed this: Are you more in line with Denton and Behe in how they accept common ancestry of all life on earth, but just believe that a "designer" was involved in the process?

I do not believe that Denton and Behe accept common ancestry, especially when it comes to human common ancestry with the animal kingdom. They may accept the scientific concept of an ancient earth, but they believe in Biblical Creation and 'Intelligent Design.'

 

[shunyadragon]

If ID is right there could still be the nested hierarchy and art. Otherwise there is no art. Up to you.

An extreme assumption without evidence.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I'm sure that's what they believe, but the reality is that neither has had any impact at all on actual science. Of course that's to be expected, since neither one's work were targeted to the scientific community but were instead written to persuade the uninformed public. Such is the nature of creationism.

But in informing the uninformed public that I guess you count me in, maybe not, they wrote about all the arguments they made with top professionals. I have read "The Philosophy of Biology" by Peter Godfrey-Smith. It is in the Princeton Foundation of Contemporary Philosophy. It seems to me from reading everything I have and the go-betweens described in Meyer that many scientists believe somewhere in the middle. I also just wanted to point out that many scientists are still Christians.

So from that it seems you believe everything has consciousness. Is that correct?

Also, you missed this: Are you more in line with Denton and Behe in how they accept common ancestry of all life on earth, but just believe that a "designer" was involved in the process?

No. Any subset of the Universe is a system(s) with thought because it can perceive transferring of matter as already explained but consciousness is "a thought about itself where the itself is removed from thinking about itself but not the thought."

And to your second question:

I don't believe Behe. I never said I believed anyone but Denton and Meyer and in fact I don't believe anyone else (of the biologists for ID).

Denton just believed that the organisms were always there as far as his science was concerned. He said in his book that he believed in God but that scientifically he could just argue for this funny-sounding idea. Actually I don't believe in time. So I can't really answer your question very clearly without giving away copywritten info. I can say that if there are ni objects with nj thoughts and mi objects with mj thoughts in the Universe ni*nj:mi*mj. I can't elaborate.

 

[robocop (actually)]

An extreme assumption without evidence.

I'm sorry if I'm grossly ignorant but I don't understand how there could be artistry without it. I'm going to crack open the Bible!

"For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen." WIsdom of Solomon 13:5.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry if I'm grossly ignorant but I don't understand how there could be artistry without it. I'm going to crack open the Bible!

Worst place to look! Are you sure your an atheist, or maybe a wolf in sheep's clothing!

"For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen." WIsdom of Solomon 13:5.

Nice theist quote for those that believe, but no cigar or brass ring for a coherent argument.

 

[leibowde84]

I tell it is, because atheists LOST intuition side of human nature, very sad but in a way the way crippled not complete humans...

Can you provide the evidence you are basing this seemingly erroneous claim on?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Worst place to look! Are you sure your an atheist, or maybe a wolf in sheep's clothing!
Nice theist quote for those that believe, but no cigar or brass ring for a coherent argument.

Yes and I was off topic too but I don't understand why there could be art.
Again,

"Artistic vision would be going above and beyond what is necessary to make life more interesting. Things that don't have a direct reason that balance themselves out anyway. "

You are very opposed to this; I don't understand why and would like you to explain it.

 

[leibowde84]

I tell it is, because atheists LOST intuition side of human nature, very sad but in a way the way crippled not complete humans...

I would say that it has been proven that those who act on intuition are generally far worse off than those who act on reasoning, logic and evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

I do not believe that Denton and Behe accept common ancestry, especially when it comes to human common ancestry with the animal kingdom.

Sure they do. Michael Behe: "For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. "

Michael Denton: ""it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies." (page xvii-xviii)."